- (1.) THE petitioner was detained vide order of the District Magistrate Rajouri, dated 23 -2 -1981, under sec. S of the Jammu and Kashmir Safety Act, 1978. The grounds of detention which were supplied to the petitioner read as under: - 1. Whereas you have been actively co -operating with the PAK Guerillas in 1956 and were supplying rations to them, working in the Mess and rendering help to Capt: Shah Ahmed, I/C Guerilla team; 2. Whereas you had promised Sub Inspector Abdual Aziz of Pak in the year 1970 that you will work with Shamash -ud -Din of PAK, GOE Section, and visited PAK Pak a number of times ; 3. Whereas you worked with Hav: Unis of PAK, FIU, to whom you were introduced by one Mlang, a renowned Pak Agent; 4. Whereas you had been maintaining link with Abdul Rashid s/o Nizam -ud -Din, resident of Polulian (Rajouri), an admitted Pak Agent, presently under detention at Central Jail Jammu, under the Public safety Act: 1978 5. Whereas you have in the current year supplied information of BSF deployment to said Abdul Rashid, for exchange of a wrist watch; 6. Whereas you collected Telephone Directory of own territory and managed to send to the Pak, FIU, through one Manzoor; 7. Whereas you had been found acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State, as you were paying clandestine visits to PAK for meeting PAK Security Officers with the purpose, of passing to them information of your side and you have been passing such information to the Pak Security Officers."
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various sub -missions questioning the detention of the petitioner. The First submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not made to understand the grounds of his detention, Nor were the grounds ever translated to him in Urdu Language therefore on that score the detention is illegal. The next submission as raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the grounds of the detention furnished to the petitioner, activities of the remote past of the year 1965 and 1970 had been taken into account while ordering his detention and that had been taken into account while ordering his detension and that activities of such remote past even if the allegations be treated to be true, cannot provide any justification for detaining the petitioner in 1981.
(3.) THE third grievance is that the grounds of detention were vague and did not provide enough material to the petitioner to make an effective representation. The last is that the documents, on the basis of which the detaining authority formed his opinion that it was essential to detain the petitioner were not supplied to the petitioner thus denying him an opportunity to make an effective opportunity, So far as the first grievance made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the affidavit of Mr. Chanchal Singh, Dy : Superintendent Police, Central Jail Jammu who stated that he had read over to the petitioner the grounds of detention and explained the same in Urdu Language is complete answer. The petitioner in Para no. 2 of the petition, he has admitted that he had knowledge of Urdu knowledge. It, therefore, does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner now to urge that the grounds of detention were not explained to him in the language which he understands. It is relevant to point out here that where as the petitioner filed rejoinder to the counter -affidavit by the Distt: Magistrate Rajouri he did not file any rejoinder to the Affidavit of Chanchal Singh, Dy S. P. Central Jail Jammu. From the material on record I am satisfied that the grounds of detention have been translated and explained to the detenue in Urdu, a language which he understood. Thus the first grievance is without any substance.;